They still make imacon scanners (I believe they were Danish actually)? Jens
-- Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. On Jan 1, 2011 20:32 "paul stenquist" <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Jan 1, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Jens wrote: > > I'm not sure Paul, but since it a studio recording done at appr. the > > same time, I guess it the same aperture - F 13 or perhaps F11. > > > > Next time I shall: > > > > 1. Make sure the conditions are very close to being exactly the > > same. > > 2. Use new 120 film (Kodak Ektar 100 or Fuji Astia 100) > > 3. Use a pro-lab for developing > > 4. Unfortunalely I don't have a por scanner, but I will use my Epson > > Perfection 3200 Photo, which does deliver reasonably good scans. > > > > I scanned on of my 6s7 shots on my 3200 and was reasonably pleased > with the results. Then, just for grins, a friend of mine scanned the > same transparency on his Imacon film scanner. The difference in > sharpness and detail resolution was considerable. No comparison. A > flatbed scan works with medium format, but it's far from optimum. > Paul > > > > > I may compare the F4 165 mm LS lens to a reasonably sharp 50mm lens > > for the K-7. > > I must say I am surprised how sharp the 2.8 28-70mm zoom lens is. It > > actually beat quite a few primes :-) > > > > Jens > > -- > > Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. > > > > On Jan 1, 2011 20:13 "paul stenquist" <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> > > wrote: > >> I'm surprised the K7 pic is as sharp as it is, given that it was > >> shot > >> at f13, where you're going to get a lot of diffusion. Try it at > >> f5.6 > >> or so. What stop did you shoot the 6x7 pic at. And what lens. You > >> list > >> an 80/2.8. I assume you mean the 90/2.8? > >> Paul > >> On Jan 1, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Jens wrote: > >> > >>> Thank you all for you rinterest in responding and answering my > >>> question. > >>> I have done some samll tests, that didin't turn out too well. But > >>> I > >>> was using old film and a questionable lab for developing. > >>> My result is shown at flickr. > >>> I photographed a sitting girl (in full figure) filling out the > >>> frame > >>> with my K-7 and with my 67. I enlarged one eye to be able to > >>> evaluate the resolution and sharpness: > >>> K-7: > >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204650099/in/set-7215762546143 > >>> 41 > >>> 40/ > >>> 67: > >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204621235/in/set-7215762546143 > >>> 41 > >>> 40/ > >>> > >>> In my small, not too well done ,test it seems that the K-7 is > >>> doing > >>> rather well. > >>> In order to convince myself, that I should keep on using the 67 > >>> (insted of selling it) I need results that show, that the 67 > >>> delivers reslults that are superior to those of the K-7. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Jens > >>> -- > >>> Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>> PDML@pdml.net > >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly > >>> above > >>> and follow the directions. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > >> and > >> follow the directions. > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > > and follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
